Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] RE: draft-ietf-isis-3way-04.txt

From: "Philip Christian"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:00:54 -0000

Sorry guys, but I have another question on this. I hope it isn't
another can of worms. Here is the question.

Looking at the table in the draft:-

I just want to understand the difference in the output from the
table between "Up" and "Accept". Presumably (but not stated), if
the output of the table is "Accept", as this is not a valid
"three-way" state to advertise in the TLV, then you just continue
to advertise "Up".

This then means that the difference between "Up" and "Accept" is
only that "Up" results in a further action, that the 10589
behaviour changes from whereever it was to "Up", hence the 
"adjacencystate(up)" event, whereas, "Accept" implies that the
10589 adjacency is already "Up", and so the event isn't needed.

If I have understood it correctly, then the "Presumably (but not
stated)" bit really should be stated, in my opinion.

Have I got this right?

Philip

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 16 January 2002 00:31
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isis-wg] RE: draft-ietf-isis-3way-04.txt
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this revision does a fine job of resolving the 
> issues that were
> raised recently.
> 
> I have one small, but significant issue with the current text:
> 
>         If the new action is "Up", an adjacencyThreeWayStateChange(Up)
>         event is generated.
> 
> 
> The use of "adjacencyThreeWayStateChange(Up)" event should be 
> changed to
> "adjacencyStateChange(Up)" event. 
> 
> While there are differences between the three way adjacency 
> states and the
> adjacency states defined in 10589, there should be no ambiguity in the
> adjacency state change events (Up/Down). "Up" means a transition has
> occurred which allows the neighbor to be advertised in the local LSPs.
> "Down" means a transition has occurred which requires the 
> neighbor to be
> removed from the local LSPs. Whether these events occur with 
> or without the
> use of the 3 way handshake has no bearing. There is no need 
> to define an
> event specific to three way state and it is in fact invalid to do so.
> 
>    Les
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
> http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>